Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 177 WVA 297 - Morrison v. Holland

Morrison v. Holland’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
May 2013
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gideon v. Wainwright · United States v. Bagley · Doyle v. Ohio

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"The Court instructs the jury that where the state has established a prima facie case and the defendants rely upon the defense of alibi, the burden is upon them to prove it, not beyond a reasonable doubt, nor by a preponderance of the evidence, but by such evidence, and to such a degree of certainty, as will, when the whole evidence is considered, create and leave in the mind of the jury a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[u]nder the harmless constitutional error doctrine, the State's burden is to show ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.' ” 177 W.Va. at 301, 352 S.E.2d at 51 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). In syllabus point twenty of State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640 , 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974), this Court held that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.